Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

femalefoundersconference.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#21

Post by mc32 »

blueflow wrote: post #5

Were Women not allowed on the 'normal' conference? Or why do we have this separation?

Well, I see two things at play here. One, there could be a subset of topics which are by the nature of things of interest to women in particular, so they can dive into these kinds of things from a woman's perspective.

To add to the above, it somewhat, superficially at least, frees women from men's ideology. But again, exposing gender antagonism.

Two, it is what people expect, in a way, so why not take this as a marketing differentiator? Perception can matter more than reality. Basically exploiting 'gender antagonism', as it were. This is a prototypical Lacanian symptom.

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#22

Post by Mz »

blueflow wrote: post #20
Mz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or why do we have this separation? One of the biggest issues women face is that most men will not talk to them unless they are hoping to bed them. Men sometimes do this out of the best of intentions -- not wanting a woman to think he is hitting on her or not wanting anyone to think there is an affair because he is "friendly" with her -- but it is a very serious obstacle to women being able to network and actually hav…

One of the biggest issues women face is that most men will not talk to them unless they are hoping to bed them. Do you have ideas how we could reduce this Problem in the future?

I occasionally blog about my thoughts on the topic. Some of those posts can be found here: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/p/hn-tools.html

The ones that might interest you most are The Gray Zone, Oh My God It's a Girl! and Glass Walls.

I also put some of the responsibility on women, which gets me into endless hot water and accused of "victim blaming." The post Nothing But a Bunch of Boobs takes that angle (but, then, so does Oh My God It's A Girl!, but it is a tad less controversial).

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#24

Post by ncza »

blueflow wrote: post #20
Mz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or why do we have this separation? One of the biggest issues women face is that most men will not talk to them unless they are hoping to bed them. Men sometimes do this out of the best of intentions -- not wanting a woman to think he is hitting on her or not wanting anyone to think there is an affair because he is "friendly" with her -- but it is a very serious obstacle to women being able to network and actually hav…

One of the biggest issues women face is that most men will not talk to them unless they are hoping to bed them. Do you have ideas how we could reduce this Problem in the future?

And can we get any source on that claim?

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#25

Post by [deleted] »

DanBC wrote: post #11
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but I assume because they named it "Female only" they were intentionally trying to exclude transgendered people. "Women only" could have included both born-woman and transitioned-woman, but "female only" is only born-woman. Wouldn't surprise me if that was the case, there is a lot of overt prejudice against born males who transitioned to a woman from both men and women (women think they're men trying to steal…

Female only is not transphobic and is not excluding transwomen. Op is downvoted not because they have correctly identified transphobia and HN is full of bigots (although it is) but because OP has leapt to an unsupported assumption. There is nothing transphobic about the submitted link. Edit: also, as far as I can tell op only got one or two downvotes, and so if they are being heavily downvoted they're also being up v…

[deleted]

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#26

Post by Mz »

ncza wrote: post #24
blueflow wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the biggest issues women face is that most men will not talk to them unless they are hoping to bed them. Do you have ideas how we could reduce this Problem in the future?

And can we get any source on that claim?

Firsthand personal experience as a woman, plus observation of the world around me, including reading what other women write, many of whom are extremely angry about how men interact with them.

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#27

Post by tomjen3 »

DanBC wrote: post #13
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Female only is not transphobic and is not excluding transwomen. Someone is born male or female, they decide to be a man or woman. It isn't overt but the implication is clear, they want specifically people born female to attend. Otherwise it is a very strange word choice. > There is nothing transphobic about the submitted link. The link? No. The event itself? Maybe.

You are creating a drama where there is none. People identify as male or female, and that might be different to how they were born. Ask a trans-person if they identify as male or female and they will usually tell you what they identify as now. They choice of "female" is possibly for the aliteration with "founder". There's nothing strange about that word choice.

Generally sex is what you were born as, you were born as either male or female.

Gender is what you identify as, you either identify as man or woman.

Now it is clear that PG and company aren't transphobic, but by giving in to the first demand for more representation of "minorities" (as if asians, immigrants and indians weren't minorities and weren't already statistically over representated) they have given the SJW a finger and when you give the devil a finger...

Personally I am going to get some popcorn and watch this drama unfold.

Re: Female Founders Conference today at 1pm PT

#30

Post by swatow »

I see two flagkilled top level comments and I assume they are saying "why do we need .... just for women". I assume that the flaggers believe that this issue has already been resolved, and debating this distracts from the real issues, and therefore should be discouraged.

On the other hand, I recall that a story about sexism in tech was flagkilled, only to be revived by the moderators. In this case I assume that the flaggers believed that the issue of sexism in tech has already been shown to be exaggerated, and flooding HN with articles like this only distracts from other interesting topics.

So my question is: are the moderators willing to be explicit about their role in guiding the debate on HN on these issues. That is, are they willing to admit that there is not consensus among HN posters on the importance of sexism in tech, or encouraging women to work in the industry, but that the moderators themselves have taken a side on this issue and want to enforce it on HN debates?

Post reply on HN